Paul Krugman wrote an op-ed in the New York Times called "John and Jerry" talking about John *snicker* "Maverick" McCain and Jerry "Insane" Falwell.
Senator John McCain obviously believes that he can't get the Republican presidential nomination without Mr. Falwell's approval. During the 2000 campaign, Mr. McCain denounced Mr. Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." But next month Mr. McCain will be a commencement speaker at Liberty University, which Mr. Falwell founded.On "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. McCain was asked to explain his apparent flip-flop. "I believe," he replied, "that the Christian right has a major role to play in the Republican Party. One reason is because they're so active and their followers are. And I believe they have a right to be a part of our party."
Yes, they have a right to be part of the party - but they don't deserve the right to attempt to turn America into a Theocracy.
But what does this mean for McCain? It obviously means that he is not going to decide to run for President in 2007 like some stories say. He already has decided to run for President.
And in deciding to run, McCain has decided to embrace the ultra-religious, extreme Religious Right. As Evan at Alternet says
What he did was to compromise any shred of respectability he once had to suck up to the most abhorrent elements of the Christian Right and to prove once and for all that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY MUST ACCEPT BIGOTS TO WIN.I write in caps so you don't miss that shocking revelation.
McCain isn't a Maverick. He's just another hypocritical politician.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Actually we do have the right to attempt to turn America into a Theocracy, if we have the political power, its our right. We'd never want to though, and that is something you might never understand. You say that the Chrisitian right is a bunch of biggots. Have you forgotten what Christian have done for American politics. How about our basic GOD given rights. Priests were the first people in America to speak out against slavery. They were also the leaders of the civil rights movement. If this is the Christian intollerance you are talking about, then I guess I'm pretty intolerant.
Your statement about the religious left in America being against slavery is correct. Churches like the Congregational Church (e.g.: United Church of Christ), Unitarian Universalist, Quaker, etc. were instrumental in leading the abolitionist movement. HOWEVER, the religious right during the same time period was very much pro-slavery. The largest religious right organization today (The Southern Baptist Convention, home to Rev. Jerry Falwell and Rev. Pat Robertson) owes its origins to slavery. And they weren't the anti-slavery crowd by any stretch of the imagination. You see, Biblical fundamentalism demands a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. Genesis 9:27 along with numerous other passages are very much pro-slavery. In fact, one is very hard pressed to find an anti-slavery passage in either the Old or New Testament. To those that don't believe me, do a Google search. Type in "Southern Baptist" and "slavery" and be prepared to learn JUST ONE of the religious right's dirty, little secrets.
Guest, you are absolutely correct. There is NO way to justifty the intentions of the reactionary religious right in this country.
Wonderful topic, LP.
We do not have the right to turn America into a theocracy. A theocracy is defined as:
The very first line of the Bill of Rights reads:
Obviously a theocracy is directly against the United States Constitution. I think that even Judge Scalia and his warped interpretation of the Constitution would agree with this.
The Christian intolerance I am talking about is Jerry Falwell and the extreme religious right. As you can see if you read my story.
I'm against the attempts by the religious right to legislate their religious views on everyone else. I'm against the Religious Right attempting to write intolerance into the Constitution by banning a group of law abiding citizens the same rights as others (gay marriage). I am against someone who says that all jews will go to hell.
I am against people who use the Bible as a bargaining chip in politics.
These are the things that Falwell and his ilk are for. If you believe these things, then yes, you are intolerant.
--------------------
There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.
If you want a Theocracy so bad, may I suggest moving to Afghanistan? The voters in that country have said there's no separation of mosque and state and that God's rule trumps any secular, man-made law. The only hitch is that you can't be Christian. You see, the majority of the voters in Afghanistan think Christians are apostates and deserve to die. As you said, they have the political power, and hence the right to make the laws to their liking. To kill. To persecute. But they're not bigots either. You see, they voted on that one too. (Now, it's time for a little prayer: "Dear Lord, Please save us from your followers. Amen").
Actually, nobody has the right to turn this country into a theocracy. The government cannot promote or favor any religion or religious group, according to the Constitution. That is why I get extremely angry when I hear people saying that American laws should reflect "God's Laws." There is no one god that ALL Americans believe in, and they cannot be expected to follow any god's laws by mandate of their government.
~Violinstef
Calling the religious right biggots could be a bit of a generalization. I was called out for a similar slip the other day and agreed felt as though my mistake discredited the whole thought in which it was contained.
I do agree though, that the religious right (RR) is a huge group of people with a considerable amount of power. But what have policicians who courted them in the past ever do for them? They never made attempts to follow through, they just strummed their emotions for the vote and forgot about them once they were elected.
Theocracies never do anything but oppress, that is a historical fact. However when we speak of when we speak of the the constitution and it's call that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", that is often hard to analyze on the words alone and it's misuse is common.
http://www.amazon.com/Ten-Tortured-Words-Founding-Religion/dp/1595550844 &
http://www.amazon.com/Godless-Constitution-Moral-Defense-Secular/dp/0393...
-----------------------------------
"Faith is to believe what you do not yet see; the reward for this faith is to see what you believe"-- St. Augustine